Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'm not seeing this movie because I'm not sure whether he was a child molester or not. There are rumours now that he actually protected kids from Epstein but I can't decide what to believe.
I do believe he molested children, although I think the reason we have trouble accepting it is that I think there are a bunch of types of molestation, and we as a culture have a poor understanding of what these are, and so we struggle to recognize them.
Epstein, for instance, sought the youngest possible post-pubescent girls in order to get off on taking their innocence.
Jackson, imo, sought out intimate friendships with prepubescent children for companionship, and those unsupervised interactions included nudity and touching of an inappropriate nature.
Both are child abuse. But they look different. Jackson got away with it (and still does, in a sense) because we don't understand his motivations the way we can for Epstein, so we can't recognize what happened.
This is unproven, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland
Yeah, never proven nor convicted. I think Culkin is more trustworthy.
I'm curious what people make of the broader allegations of a history of child endangerment and irresponsible behavior with kids beyond the lurid sexual accusations.
For instance, do you consider the claims that he held his new born over the railing of a balcony credible? Is that part of a broader rumor mill? What do you make of that?
None corroborated in any meaningful way that I was able to find
Do you know the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Because I regret to inform you that I believe you're falling prey to it.
Are you saying that me remarking the lack of verifiable sources is in somehow a logical fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Read again, in case you needed the refresher
I'm saying that considering the availability of credible accusors, I think you're defining who counts as a credible accusors in a selective way to maintain your prior assumptions.
I'm not saying this to be snide or disrespectful. I'm just asking if it's possible you're letting a bias go unnoticed.